direct experience over intellectual understanding

Welcome to the main forum. When you are ready to start a conversation, register and once your application is processed a guide will come to talk to you.
This is one-on-one style forum, one thread per green member.
User avatar
Free2K
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:46 pm

Hi Vivien,
You are trying to intellectual figure out this out. Stop trying to find no-self, rather prove the existence of the self or subject.

What is the evidence that there is a subject or a self anywhere? Prove it!

Make a list of evidences that proves that there is a self or subject.

What are the facts that proves the existence of a subject?
The only thing I can say to try to prove it is that perceptions exist. There is no way to prove that anything that is perceived actually, truly exists- like an apple, because all that is known is the image, smell, and taste of it. Feelings, thoughts and emotions are also perceived that are attributed to “me” purely because they are experienced. I know all those things aren’t “me”. But the fact is is that all of these perceptions are known. So it’s just inferred that they would be known by something. But it can’t be experienced because all there is is experience. That’s all I can say.

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 3556
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:10 am

Hi Kelly,
The only thing I can say to try to prove it is that perceptions exist.
But just because perception exists, it doesn’t prove that there is a subject of perception, that there is a perceiver. Not at all.
But the fact is is that all of these perceptions are known. So it’s just inferred that they would be known by something.
Exactly! It’s just INFERRED by thoughts.
So the task is to PROVE that perception is known by something, by a subject. And it’s not just an inferred one.
But the fact is is that all of these perceptions are known. So it’s just inferred that they would be known by something. But it can’t be experienced because all there is is experience.
Do you see that the perceiver ONLY INFERRED, and other thoughts say that ‘It cannot be known because all there is experience”? Do you see that the logic you use is a catch-22? That the problem is with your logic? And not with the facts?

That you distort the fact with your false logic?

The third sentence (all there is experience) is the PROOF that there is NO perceiver, only an INFERRED one by thoughts, which is by the way also the part of experience which all there is?


Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 3556
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:15 am

So it’s just inferred that they would be known by something.
all there is is experience

You actually PROVED that there is NO PERCEIVER or subject.

All there is is experience.
And the subject/experiencer just INFERRED by thoughts.
And this thought inference is also part of experience, which all there is.
Even the inference of a perceiver is ‘INSIDE’ of all there is.
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Free2K
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:28 pm

Vivien, I’m really starting to see it!! Everything and anything that happens or is conceived of is ALL simply KNOWN EXPERIENCE. Any thought of there being a knower or perceiver or doer or feeler is still KNOWN. There can never be anything “outside” of that because it logically makes no sense. If we “knew” about the existence of an outside knower of experience, that too would be known.... and who would know that?! It would go on forever- the knowing of a knower.

So the character of Kelly continues exactly as it had before, doing things, making decisions, reacting emotionally. But it’s all just a part of what’s happening.

I feel like the realization of this still has to crystallize in some sense, like in terms of its implications. But I know even that too is a contradiction because what is, is. Content of what is has nothing to do with it ultimately.

But wow, this is big! And like you’ve said all along, so simple and obvious. The one post-it that I had wrote a while ago and put on my wall was “there’s no one separate from experience who can know experience”. I couldn't quite grasp it but I knew it was the ultimate truth. And now I see! There’s this curiosity to see what happens now- an interest in how life is going to “play out”. Ah!

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 3556
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:24 am

Hi Kelly,
Vivien, I’m really starting to see it!! Everything and anything that happens or is conceived of is ALL simply KNOWN EXPERIENCE. Any thought of there being a knower or perceiver or doer or feeler is still KNOWN. There can never be anything “outside” of that because it logically makes no sense. If we “knew” about the existence of an outside knower of experience, that too would be known.... and who would know that?! It would go on forever- the knowing of a knower.
I’m glad to hear that :)
But wow, this is big!
How does it FEEL to see this?
So the character of Kelly continues exactly as it had before, doing things, making decisions, reacting emotionally. But it’s all just a part of what’s happening.
So is the character of Kelly is the doer?

She is the one who makes decision?

Is she the one who is reacting emotionally?


Please be careful not to reply back from the knowing of no-self there, but really, really look at each questions.

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Free2K
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:35 am

Hi Vivien,
How does it FEEL to see this?
Well it really doesn’t feel any different, unless I think about it. Then there’s a bit of a relaxation but it kind of feels that’s how it’s always been. Maybe it hasn’t fully sunk in?
So is the character of Kelly the doer?
No, when I look, the character of Kelly is just happening and unfolding, along with everything else. But the appearance of Kelly doing things is there as it always has been.
She is the one who makes decision?
The process of decision making appears but when looked at those thoughts and “decisions” are just another thing that’s happening without there being a “Kelly” behind the thoughts that chooses them. There can be a thought like, “i chose that thought, I made that decision”. But that also just appeared- there wasn’t anyone choosing to think that.
Is she the one who is reacting emotionally?
No the emotions (thoughts and feelings) just appear. They still seem linear and directly connected to events but this is all the thought story. There’s nothing behind the emotions.

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 3556
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:18 am

Hi Kelly,

Your replies sound clear, but something is missing. As if it didn’t sink in. As if it were just a change in beliefs and not an experiential shift. What would you say to this?

Does it feel that the only difference is a change in beliefs? That previously you believed that there must be something outside experiencing, and now you don’t believe it any more since you have seen through the false logic you used before. Is this so?

Or has it sink in to the visceral level and have become a deep conviction without any doubt whatsoever?

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Free2K
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:12 am

Hi Vivien,

You are completely right... unfortunately :(

The difference definitely only feels like a shift in beliefs because it’s just a sense of mental relief when I consider that “I” don’t actually exist in terms of a doer behind experience. It does just feel like a seeing through of some of my faulty beliefs and logic... when I consider it. It’s not a visceral difference and doubt has definitely been creeping back in a lot the past day or two. Oy. I really thought there was clearer seeing, but I guess it was more like thoughts feeling pretty righteous about clear seeing.

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 3556
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:35 am

Hi Kelly,
The difference definitely only feels like a shift in beliefs because it’s just a sense of mental relief when I consider that “I” don’t actually exist in terms of a doer behind experience. It does just feel like a seeing through of some of my faulty beliefs and logic... when I consider it.
Yes, but it’s still a very important discover, since this faulty belief and logic has completely blocked looking.

Let’s go back to your belief:
But the fact is is that all of these perceptions are known. So it’s just inferred that they would be known by something. But it can’t be experienced because all there is is experience.
So you state some facts here (green), but with a faulty logic.
So the problem is the red logical conclusion.

It’s very important that you see it again and again that this belief is just coming from a faulty logic.

The next step is to see that ALL logic (faulty or not faulty) comes from thinking only.
So whether a logic is faulty or not, is still just an intellectual theory.

What would you do if you wanted to learn to ride a bike? Would you just read lots of books about it, and just watch on TV how cyclists do it, and then just think and think and make logical conclusions about how you would do it? Would you be able to actually learn how to balance and ride a bike?

Or would you actually have to sit onto a bike and try it for yourself to make it experiential, to make it real?


So now, you have to LOOK in practice, not just keep everything on a theoretical level.

Now you have to let go off all logical thinking and theorizing and spend your time on actually looking at experience, to see what is actually happening. All right? Are you willing to do that?

Please put the focus on the feeling of the self/me and tell me how is it felt?


Please don't say that there is no self, but tell me how self is felt here now.
Rather search for the feeling that relates to the me.

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/

User avatar
Free2K
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 5:41 am

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Free2K » Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:58 pm

Hi Vivien,
What would you do if you wanted to learn to ride a bike? Would you just read lots of books about it, and just watch on TV how cyclists do it, and then just think and think and make logical conclusions about how you would do it? Would you be able to actually learn how to balance and ride a bike?
Or would you actually have to sit onto a bike and try it for yourself to make it experiential, to make it real?
Yes, of course, you would have to actually, physically do it in order to learn experientially.
So now, you have to LOOK in practice, not just keep everything on a theoretical level.

Now you have to let go off all logical thinking and theorizing and spend your time on actually looking at experience, to see what is actually happening. All right? Are you willing to do that?
Yes, I have been trying to as much as I can. I just seem to face a lot of resistance to actually looking- or maybe I just don’t know fully how to. Whenever thoughts are complaining about what is happening to “me” I try to remember to look for the me in those moments - the one who feels sad or bored or upset. I only ever just find the thoughts and the sensations, never a me to whom this all happening to. But for some reason it still doesn’t sink in. Maybe I don’t look enough? But I try to look as much as I remember to.
Please put the focus on the feeling of the self/me and tell me how is it felt? Please don't say that there is no self, but tell me how self is felt here now. Rather search for the feeling that relates to the me.
There are only the thoughts about what is felt and the felt sensations. But those two things together so strongly comprise the a “me”.

Kelly

User avatar
Vivien
Posts: 3556
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:07 am
Location: Australia

Re: direct experience over intellectual understanding

Postby Vivien » Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:42 am

Hi Kelly,
I just seem to face a lot of resistance to actually looking- or maybe I just don’t know fully how to.
Please tell me, how does this resistance show up?
Whenever thoughts are complaining about what is happening to “me” I try to remember to look for the me in those moments - the one who feels sad or bored or upset. I only ever just find the thoughts and the sensations, never a me to whom this all happening to. But for some reason it still doesn’t sink in. Maybe I don’t look enough?
Yes, that’s good. But this has to be seen again and again, and again. It needs to be seen hundreds if not thousands of times that there is only thoughts and sensation, and never an actual, real self.
There are only the thoughts about what is felt and the felt sensations. But those two things together so strongly comprise the a “me”.
The point is to see it again and again and again, that there is only thoughts and sensations. When they are not seen only as thoughts and sensations, then BUMMM! – the illusion of the self feels very real.

Thoughts say: my hand, my sadness, I am angry, she hurt my feelings, I’m so frustrated, I’m tired, I want to eat something, I don’t feel good about this, etc.

Please search through the body for a ME that thoughts are talking on behalf.
Where is the ME that thoughts are constantly talking on behalf?
Where?


Please don’t just say that there is none, but rather be curious to find this phantom-me that thoughts are almost incessantly talking about.

Vivien
"In the seen, there is only the seen. In the heard, there is only the heard. In the sensed, there is only the sensed. You are located neither in this, nor in that, nor in any place between the two." - Buddha
http://fadingveiling.com/


Return to “THE GATE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest